by parel » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:58 pm
Alright. I owe everyone an apology for using expletives, for name calling and for my caustic tone in general. Operator Kos, I apologise for calling you an imperialist. But here's the story in my words:
I see a thread with "human trafficking" in the title, I know it's a good bet that I'm about to view WOHT propaganda and that they will try to debase me with violence and graphic depictions of violence and sexual violence. I know that what I am about to view may or may not be fiction. I mean, it is a yahoo article, they post a lot of anti-trafficking stories, as does the mainstream in general. In the same way I would if I saw a "terrorist plot" article in yahoo. With great scepticism.
Upon urging people only to research further and posting an article by a sex worker who had done a two year study, I am immediately set upon by the resident "Disclosure Police". The writer is impugned by Blanc as she ruminates about who is paying the writer (paying the "worker") as though the sex worker movement is funded (which it's not) and the rescue industry is not (which it is). No, ignore the sex worker and let's favour the narrative that has been mediated by US (& UN) policy. On what basis she objects to the writer I am not sure, but make a note that Blanc is probably whorephobic and doesn't like the slant because the writer disclosed she was a sex worker. I take this bias personally - feeling Othered, negated, blanked out and feel further insulted that I am indirectly being accused of trying "silence victims" by posting the piece. Then a passage about how the anti-trafficking movement cherry picks topics to highlight its pet causes is then cherry picked by Blanc to go on to portray an important issue, but also use to accuse me of trying to silence victims (that really hurts). Listening to victims. Sure. The issue is suppressed, needs to highlighted, brought out into the open. Yes, I agree. What I don't agree with, is the war on trafficking and the way its being prosecuted. Willow goes on to reinforce that patriarchal power by invoking an incendiary term like "anti-trafficking", a war term, then comes some story involving people from the rescue industry and the UN. At once, I sense zealotry, we are possibly at an impasse already - and realise I am facing a potential enemy. An anti-trafficker. So yeah, I see red. I don't see why these two have the right to invoke and benefit from the war machine, the bias against sex workers and deep misogyny. invoking the violence that implies and that *I* shouldn't be allowed to use verbal blunt force. When all I was saying was dig deeper, look at the evidence. I was upset that they were taking the patriarchy's word over mine or any woman's.
And I harbour a special ire for anti-trafficking "feminists" because these women have sold us out. Any woman that believes that visiting patriarchal violence on vulnerable women in the name of "rescue" is an enabler of colonial violence and is quite honestly, my sworn enemy. Those women, those "feminists" are not part of any solidarity movement whatsoever. Maybe the sisterhood was a myth. I'm starting to think so. Let's not pretend that this is not a war zone. The terrain is our bodies and the fight is for sovereignty of that terrain. As the article points out, the term "trafficking", an extremely divisive and loaded term, was not part of the discourse ten years ago. This would have been a VERY different conversation ten years ago.
Willow, I am sorry to hear about the intense hardship you suffered as a child. I am holding back on a gesture of solidarity, but hope that you find a space to heal and strengthen. Thank you for using the term "slavery" when bringing this up with me and relating to me as a woman and not an instrument of war. I feel saddened that our natural kinship is separated by imperial violence, but will stay out of your way and wish you well.
Kos, the articles that 82 posted actually illustrate how ineffectual the war on trafficking has been. "Accused, involved, accused". The one I would be inclined to investigate further would be the one from Portugal, about institutional abuse. That is may have used war resources to prosecute might be less important than the fact that it was the tenacity and years of fight by the victims that brought it to fruition. Those in the community. So how many UN personell have been charged since the war started? zero. How many Dyncorp or Halliburton employees? zero. Military employees? zero The war is about rounding up "undesirables" among other things, not rescuing people.
My apologies to everyone, mods and Jeff included for being so rude.
